The following Testimony was drafted to be incorporated
into the "Argumentative part" of Reformation Principles Exhibited,
in which the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America (RPCNA) had once
intended to "exhibit their principles to the world." This document was published
in 1839, about which time other documents were also drafted by those who still
hoped to see an "Argumentative part of the Testimony" completed and adopted.
These various testimonies on particular topics are of considerable value in
themselves, but the course of events in the RPCNA left their authors in
a state of disappointment. The present editor has found this testimony very
agreeable as a plain & succinct assertion of the grounds on which he and other Covenanters
still dissent from the infidel constitution of the united states and disown
the "government" established therein. It is hoped that the document, in its
short but thorough explanation of why the constitution must be disowned, will
be useful to others also, who may not yet have considered the present
duty of Christians in this regard; so that in due time, those who have
strayed into the crooked paths of compliance with the wicked, and conformity
to the world, may be brought to the right way again, and a new RPCNA once
again constituted to testify both by words and deeds for the Truth of Jesus
Christ and against the enemies of our Glorious Sovereign.

The present editor has
taken the liberty to make a few minor corrections, not affecting the meaning, and
to make two very small deletions. In addition, a few Scripture References have
been inserted, as well as some bracketed-notes and footnotes to make the document more relevant
to the present day. If any wish to consult the original printed
edition of 1839, the text thereof has also been made available online:

God has instituted civil government for the advancement
of his own glory and for the good of men. "The powers
that be are ordained of God." "He is the minister of God
to thee for good." Rom. 13.1,4. It was instituted before
the fall of man; and so originated in the law of nature, binding
the moral subject of God's government to obey his Creator.
Its author is a holy God, the law by which it is regulated is
holy, and it is designed to promote the glory of God and the
holiness and happiness of man. As every intelligent creature
is under law to God in his individual capacity, so all associations
of moral agents are under obligation to be subject to
the law of their natures. Adam and Eve, in their social relations,
were as much bound in all things to obey the laws of
their Creator, as in the duties which they owed to him individually.
{41}
God instituted the marriage relation, and prescribed
its mutual obligations. All the subjects of Jehovah's moral
government, in their relations to each other, are bound to act
according to the will of God. In the first four of the Ten
Commandments, or in the first table of the law, God has ordained
what duties men shall perform to himself; and in the
other six, or second table, those which they shall perform to
one another. The social, as well as the personal actings of
men are equally to be regulated by the law of God. The
rectitude or the sinfulness of every individual and of every
social act, is determined by its conformity or disconformity
to the will of the supreme lawgiver. "He that doeth righteousness
is righteous." 1 John 3.7. "Whosoever committeth
sin, transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression
of the law." 1 John 3.4. The actions of civil rulers and of
subjects are good, when they accord with the law of God, and
evil, when they violate its provisions. This maxim is agreeable
to the common conscience of men in all nations, that know and
acknowledge the being of a God. Were it not so, conscience
would impose no restraint on the evil propensities of magistrates
or subjects; conscience could neither accuse nor excuse
them as to their civil actions; for that faculty exercises the
office of a judge in applying the law of God. Hence all
legitimate civil rule is from God, as Creator, and in its constitution
and administration must be conformed to the will of
its Author. To maintain that it was instituted of God, and
then left entirely to the will of the creature, is no better than
the doctrine of Epicurus, that God having created the universe,
at once and forever abandoned all care of it as to its
sustentation or government. Indeed, many of the popular
maxims of civil government are neither more nor less than a
partial revival of that Epicurean tenet. "They say unto
God, depart from us; for we desire not the knowledge of thy
ways. What is the Almighty that we should serve him?"
Job 21.14,15. All such notions are essentially atheistical,
offering the highest indignity to the Lawgiver, and doing violence
to the natural conscience.

God has placed our world under an economy of mercy,
and subjected it to the Lord Jesus Christ as Mediator, who
has interposed for the salvation of sinners. All right to the
enjoyment of any good in the material world and in the moral
institutions of the Creator, was forfeited by man when he
violated the covenant of works and fell in Adam. He had no
{42}
right, after his fall, to any of the blessings flowing from civil
government. Having forfeited life, no title could remain to
any of the enjoyments resulting from his social relations.—Had
man not fallen, Adam would have been the patriarchal
civil ruler of all his posterity as long as he continued on earth.
God made him to have dominion over the works of his hands,
and put all things under his feet: "all sheep and oxen, yea
and the beasts of the field; the fowls of the air, and the fish
of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the
seas." Psalm 8.6-8. This dominion man lost by the violation
of the old covenant. Christ Jesus, the second man, the
Lord from heaven, has committed to him the dominion which
passed by sin from the hands of the first man. "We see
Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the
suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor." Heb. 2.9.
"The government is laid on his shoulders; he sits on the
throne of David to order and to establish it forever." "He is
the Prince of the kings of the earth." "Thrones, principalities,
powers and dominions are made subject to him."—Princes
and judges of the earth, and all nations are commanded
to do homage to him. He has given by his Spirit the written
Word to men, as the law of his government in this colony
of his empire. "All kings of the earth shall praise thee, O
Lord, when they hear the words of thy mouth." Ps. 138.4.
He has commanded the nations to provide out of all the
people, "able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating
covetousness; and place such over them." Exod. 18.21. By
his high and holy authority, he has enjoined that all who are
detained in unrighteous bondage shall be immediately emancipated.
"Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose
the bonds of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to
let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?"
Isa. 58.6.

All these injunctions of the God of heaven, have been disregarded
by the people of the United States, in the organization
and administration of their civil government.

1. In the United States Constitution there is no recognition
of the Holy Scriptures, as extending their authority over the
nation or over any individual citizen. The Preamble to that
instrument is as follows:—"We the people of the United
States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice,
insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings
{43}
of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish
this constitution, for the United States of America."—Among
the objects here enumerated, there is not mentioned
the observation of the laws of God, either as they are revealed
by the light of nature, or in the Holy Scriptures. There is
no mention of any rule as paramount to the will of the people,
who ordain this fundamental law of the commonwealth.—Examine
the document through all its articles and sections,
and there will not be found any reference to the law of God,
either directly or by implication. Were any State in the
Union to frame a constitution without referring to that of the
United States, it would be deemed a rejection of the Federal
government, and it would be so in fact. The United States
is a colony in the Mediatory dominion of the Lord Jesus
Christ; for "every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ
is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Phil. 2.11. As
there is no such confession, nor any allusion to his law in the
Federal constitution, it is plainly a rejection of the written
Word, as the rule by which they profess to be governed.—There
are, indeed, societies of various character formed in
every nation, without any formal recognition of the governing
power, and yet they are not considered as chargeable with
its rejection. But they are not governmental associations; the
objects which they propose to attain are not those of civil
government; or if they are in part, the means by which they
are to be attained are different. God, the supreme Ruler,
has enacted laws for the government of commonwealths, and
commanded all to obey them. The nation that refuses to
recognize them is chargeable with a formal disregard of God's
authority. It could not be the intention of the framers of the
[united states] constitution, to acknowledge the Holy Scriptures as the supreme
law of the land; otherwise deists would have been
excluded from all those offices where an oath of office is required
upon entering on its administration. That they are
so excluded, has never been held by the most zealous advocates
of the Christianity of the constitution. It is well known,
also, that there were many infidels in the convention by whom
it was formed, and who signed it without dissent from any of
its provisions. They certainly understood it; and they would
never have solemnly assented and pledged themselves to it,
in the face of all those who knew their infidelity, had it embraced
a recognition of the Christian religion. Farther, were
the empires of Turkey and China to be revolutionized, and
{44}
adopt a republican form of government, they might, continuing
in Mahometanism and Paganism, adopt the whole United
States' constitution, except the name, without inconsistency.
There is nothing in the instrument, adverse to Mahometanism,
or Brahmanism. A Mahometan, or a Hindoo Brahman,
might be elected a member of Congress, or President of the
United States, take the oath of office, and administer it, without
renouncing any of his dogmas.[A] But what is substantially
the same thing, both Jews and Deists have sworn to
support the constitution, without being deemed guilty of an
act inconsistent with their rejection of the Bible, in whole or
in part. How could they be so charged? What provision
of the document could be pled against them? None.

In reply to all this, it has been urged that Sunday is mentioned
in the constitution. True, it is so. But in what connection?
"If any bill shall not be returned by the President
within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been
presented to him, the same shall be a law." (Art. I. Sec. vii.
specification 2.) Is it a violation of the tenets of a Jew, Deist,
Mahometan, or Hindoo, to retain a bill, in some cases,
eleven or twelve days, instead of ten? Does he thereby acknowledge
the Sabbath to be a divine institution? Were two
merchants to enter into partnership, on condition that their
store should not be opened on Sabbath, a deistical partner
would not violate the contract by spending the whole of that
day in some other secular employment—as many Presidents
have done, their oath of office notwithstanding. The mention
of the Sabbath, and by its pagan name too,[B] is no more a recognition
of that day as set apart by God in his word for devotion,
than the naming of Thursday for any transaction by
christians, is a recognition of the worship of the pagan idol
Thor, to whom, among the heathen, that day was sacred.—Besides,
it was not the intention of those who framed the constitution,
to exclude christians from the office of President.
They intended to put all on an equal footing. Had they not
excepted the Sabbath, an advantage would have been given
to an infidel President, over a christian, who might entertain
conscientious scruples as to the examining of bills on the
Lord's day. After all, were there, as there is not, a recognition
of one precept of the law of God, would that be an acknowledgment
of the whole law? It might as well be pled
that the punishment of theft, by the government of China, is
a recognition of the Christian religion, and proves that government
{45}
to be Christian, because one commandment of the
Bible is—"Thou shalt not steal." By this argument, all the
governments of the world might be proved to recognize christianity,
and to acknowledge Messiah as their prince! The
advocates of the christianity of the United States' government
must be hard pressed in the field of argument, when
they are compelled to rear the superstructure of their advocacy
on so narrow a basis.

II. Christ's Lordship over the United States is not acknowledged
by the people in the constitution of their government.
How could it be, when many of those who framed,
and who have administered it, have held him to be an impostor,
and his Bible a cunningly devised fable? All the arguments
under the preceding article, go to establish this charge.
In truth, so little has the word of God been read and studied
in this land, that a great majority of the citizens remain to
this day in wilful ignorance of the truth, that Christ as Mediator
"is the prince of the kings of the earth:" Rev. 1.5. How
could they acknowledge his lordship over them, while they
are ignorant of his claims? A vast majority of the people
make no profession of his religion in their own persons, as
members of his church. Is it reasonable to suppose that this
irreligious majority would recognize his claims to lordship
over the commonwealth? Let any religious man survey his
own neighborhood, and reflect on the character of all his acquaintances,
and then ask himself, is it probable that such a
people would frame a government to do homage to the Lord
Jesus Christ, "as having all power given to him in heaven
and earth?" Mat. 28.18. Were the members of the convention
better informed on these subjects, or more religious
than the mass of the people? Far otherwise, indeed. The
number of religious men, occupying the civil offices of the
commonwealth, have been very few, in proportion to that of
the christian professors in the several Protestant churches.
It was so in the convention. There was even less probability
that they would acknowledge Christ, than that a majority
of the whole people would have done so, had they all been
assembled in order to form a constitution. But we are not
left to this a priore reasoning; we have the demonstration of
fact. There is no allusion to the Author of the Christian religion;
no hint that such a personage ever appeared in the
world. There could not have been less had the constitution
been framed in China, Turkey or Hindoostan. Would any
{46}
man, if he had no other means of information, suspect from
the perusal of the constitution, that the Son of God had ever
appeared in our world as the Saviour of sinners—that he
died, rose again, and is set down at the right hand of the
majesty on high? Never. And are we, after all this, to be
told that he is acknowledged, his religion recognized, and his
law honored, in an instrument from which even the being of
such a person could not possibly be known? In a christian
commonwealth, where there had been Bibles, churches, ministers
of the gospel, and an extensive and stated ministration
of gospel ordinances, from the first settlement of the colonies,
without interruption, to the meeting of the convention, such
a contemptuous neglect to do any honor to Jesus Christ, the
Lord of the whole earth, is an act of rebellion against the authority
of Jehovah, a national sin of deep aggravation, over
which every good man is called to mourn. It is a sin which
God will visit, "when he cometh out of his place to punish
the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity." Isa. 26.25.

In reply to this it is argued, that until a nation recognizes
the authority of Christ, it is no sin not to acknowledge him—as
there is no breach of engagement, no violation of vow.
We reply, that there can be no act of voluntary obedience
approved of God, where there is no legitimate authority. If
the authority is lawful, and the claim to obedience just, it is a
sin to refuse to obey, whether it be promised or not. The
claim of Christ to dominion is founded in the donation of the
kingdom to him by God the Father. "I will make him my
first born, higher than the kings of the earth." Ps. 89.27.
"Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations
shall serve him." Ps. 72.11. "Be wise now therefore, O
ye kings, be instructed ye judges of the earth—kiss ye the
Son, lest he be angry and ye perish from the way." Ps. 2.10,12.
His right to rule is absolute, and not suspended on
the will of the nations. In the day of his wrath he will prostrate
kings who refuse to do him homage, as well as those
who have promised to obey him and have violated their oath
of allegiance. If the objection be valid, then all the nations
of the world, from the organization of the first commonwealth
to the end of the world, might have refused to acknowledge
the lordship of Christ, and yet no guilt have rested on them.
How preposterous! God the Father bestows on his Son the
right to reign, and commands all to obey; all refuse, or at
least neglect to do him homage according to the decree of the
{47}
Father, and yet they commit no sin! They expressly reject
the authority of him "who has a right to reign," and yet are
guiltless! If this is the best plea for the disregard of Christ's
authority, by the United States, that conscience which will be
quieted by it, must be easily appeased.

III. There is not in the constitution any acknowledgment
of God. The same remark applies as in the preceding topic—No
one could know, by reading the constitution, that there
is a God. There would be nothing absurd in an Atheist
giving his affirmation for its support. What article, provision
or sentiment might be pled against him? None. The
constitution forbids any religious test. "No religious test shall
ever be required as a qualification to any office." (Art. vi.
Sec. 3.) Were the existence of God recognized, it would
require a test, excluding atheists; as the oath of office would
be a solemn declaration of belief in the being of God. Hence
it was manifestly the intention neither to profess a national
belief of the being of Jehovah, nor any subjection to him.—The
will of the people, and not the law of God, was thought,
by the framers of that document, to be the ultimate fountain
of civil government. Were it true that in a christian nation,
the civil authority might be the ordinance of God, without
any recognition of the Mediatory dominion, because it is
founded in the law of nature, the refusal of the nation to acknowledge
the God of nature, sets aside the claim of the United
States' government to be his institution. It is a proclamation
that the commonwealth holds itself to be independent
of "all that is called God." Unless there is a God, there
can be no law of nature. A profession of subjection to the
law of nature is a recognition of the being of God, and of his
authority. It cannot be inferred from any provision in the
constitution, that there are any eternal and unalterable principles
of national right or wrong, unless it be, that the majority
of the nation can do no wrong. The United States, as a nation,
have not acknowledged any God as their God. If any
thing can constitute national atheism, this sin may, without
overstraining, be charged on the United States, in framing
their federal constitution. According to the Westminster
Divines, (Larger Catechism, Question 105,)—"The sins forbidden
in the first commandment are, atheism, in denying or
not having a God—the not having and avouching him for God
and our God," &c. "The fool hath said in his heart, there
is no God." Ps. 14.5. Should any one ask a citizen of this
{48}
commonwealth, Has your nation any God? would it not be
very natural to reply, Read the federal constitution; that is
the only expression of our national faith? We as a nation,
believe every thing which that document embraces, and we
cannot be said to believe any principle which it does not contain.
The inquirer reads the document, and does not find
the name of God, nor any allusion to his being or government:
will he not safely infer that this commonwealth has no
God? The Westminster Divines say, that the not having a
God is atheism. If any one still affirms that the nation claims
to have a God, how will he prove it? Clearly, not by the
constitution. The atheism, with which we charge that instrument,
is, that in it the nation does not recognize the being
of God, "nor avouch him to be their God." [Deut. 26.17.] All this is so repugnant
to the love and fear of God, that many attempts have
been made to diminish the odium of such dishonor to Him;
to apologise for this most unholy feature of the constitution,
and to make it acceptable to the christian people.

1. It is said to be a great honor to God not to mention his
name in the constitution, as it takes his being and authority
for granted! If this is true, the church could not better fulfil
her duty, than to omit all mention of the name of God in her
creeds and confessions! The magistracy and the ministry
are both ordinances of God; and if the former may be constituted
without referring to his authority or name, and honor
him by the omission, why not the latter?

2. It is pled that the name of God is not in the book of
Esther, yet we admit it into the canon of divine revelation;
and that therefore the government of the United States may
be acknowledged to be the ordinance of God, though his
name is not found in its constitution. Such attempts to defend
a sinful nation in the dishonor which it does to God the
Creator, would be unworthy of mention or refutation, were
it not that they beguile unstable souls, and that those who are
inclined to flatter the ungodly great, satisfy their consciences
with the most transparent sophisms. This sophism we expose
by the following remarks:

1. The name of God is in the Bible, of which the book of
Esther forms a part; whereas his name is found in no part of
the United States constitution.

2. The name of God is engraven on the whole of that portion
of his word [the book of Esther]; for, as a historical document, it displays
his wisdom, power, and goodness, exercised in the preservation
{49}
of his people. Who can find the name of Jehovah, so
impressed on the federal constitution?

3. The book of Esther was designed to make known the
God of Israel. This will not be questioned by any one but
an infidel. It reveals the Excellency of Jehovah, not only as
the God of providence, but as the God of grace. "Now in
Shushan the palace, there was a certain Jew, whose name
was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Kish, a Benjamite,
which had been carried away with Jechoniah, king of Judah,
whom Nebuchadnezzer the king of Babylon had carried
away." Esth. 2.5,6. This specification is designed to show
that Mordecai and Esther, and their people—the Jews, were
the covenant people of God. It directs the mind of the devout
reader to the church of God, as directly as if it had been
named; and is the key to the whole narrative. The book of
Esther contains a historical illustration of the truth, that the
kingdom of providence is administered by the Prince of the
kings of the earth, in subserviency to the interests of his
church. Is the name of God not in all this? Now it may be
asked of every candid man, whether he believes the design of
the United States' constitution is to make known and honor
God, either as the God of providence, or as the God of the
church?

4. The name of Jehovah is in the book of Esther, however
often the contrary has been ignorantly asserted. The name
Judah signifies a praiser of Jehovah. The name translated
Jews, signifies praisers of Jehovah. The name of God is
put on his people. "And they shall put my name on the
children of Israel." Num. 6.27. God changed the name of
Jacob to that of Israel, which signifies, prince of God; which
name the whole church bears, to remind all her members of
their relation to the God of Jacob, and to encourage them in
prayer to him. This shows that the name Jews, or praisers
of God, was not fortuitous. Jacob refers in the blessing
of Judah, to the import of his name. "Judah, thou art he
whom thy brethren shall praise." Gen. 49.8. While he
praised Jehovah, his brethren should praise him. The name
of Jehovah is put on his people; for under the New Testament
dispensation, the saints are called Jews. "Thus saith
the Lord of hosts; in those days, it shall come to pass that ten
men shall take hold, out of all languages of the nations, even
shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying we
will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you."
{50}
Zec. 8.23. "He is not a Jew, which is one outwardly—but
he is a Jew which is one inwardly." Rom. 2.28,29.
The name Jew is designed of God to signify, that he to whom
it belongs in its true sense, is a worshipper of Jehovah, the
God of Israel. The tracing of the ancestry of Mordecai to
Benjamin, and the record of his having been a citizen of Jerusalem,
at the time of the carrying away to Babylon, for the
purpose of showing that he was a member of the church, is
evidence that we do not lay too much stress on the name,
"Praisers of God." In the forty-seven times that this name
occurs in the book of Esther, it signifies in every instance, in
the original, a praiser, or praisers of God; so that his name,
named upon his people, is mentioned in the book of Esther
forty-seven times. If the futile objection which we have refuted,
does not merit all the argument bestowed on it, some
profit may accrue in reminding all that the members of the
church of Christ are bound to worship Jehovah, Israel's God;
and not to do homage to his enemies, who refuse to obey him.
They are encouraged not to fear the modern Hamans, though
they bow not to them, for the God of the Jews will defend
them.

(To be continued.)

THE

REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN.

VOL. III.

MAY, 1839.

No. III.

Testimony Against the Moral Evils in the Civil Insti-

tutions of the United States.

(Published in "Overture" by order of Synod.)

(Continued from page 50.)

III. It is pled that all these charges against the U. States'
Constitution are mere defects, that no human instrument is
perfect, and though there may be much wanting, yet those
who swear to support the constitution do not bind themselves
to any thing positively evil. This plea for the United
States' constitution, as it is older, so it is more plausible than
either of the preceding. We trust however, we shall soon
demonstrate that it has no more weight than those that we
have refuted.

1. It will be admitted that there may be so great defects
in a constitution of either a church or a state, as to vitiate the
whole instrument. Try it in the church. Did any body of
men associate for the purpose of worshipping God, without
any acknowledgment of Christ, no Christian will plead that
any one could connect himself with such an association, and
be guiltless. Yet he would bind himself to no positive evil,
it might be pled, with as a great plausibility. Were there,
again, in a constitution of civil government no guarantee of
any security in the enjoyment of personal right for the body
of the citizens, and strong guards of the power and possessions
of rulers, none would plead that there would be no sin
in adopting such an instrument as our own by swearing to its
support. Now are the rights of God and the claims of his
{66}
law, of less high and holy import than the rights of men?—The
acknowledgement of God lies at the basis of every superstructure
of civil or magisterial authority. If there can
be any fundamental defect, it is the refusal to recognize the
authority of the supreme Lawgiver.

2. It is a positive immorality to maintain, as is done in the
United States' constitution, that the people are the ultimate
source of all civil power. It is true, this is not directly asserted
in express words; but it is not the less, on that account,
the doctrine of the constitution. There is no hint of
a derivation of power to rule from any other quarter, than the
will of a majority of the people. That all law, all right, and
all authority, proceed from God the Creator and moral governor
of the world, is not admitted. This is, in the worst
sense of the phrase, to forget God. "The wicked shall be
turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." Ps. 9.17.
"The nation and kingdom that will not serve him shall
perish; yea, those nations shall utterly perish." Isa. 60.12.
God does not cause to perish, utterly waste, and turn into hell,
those who commit no sin. The forgetting of God—the neglect
to serve him, are in these texts denounced as damning
sins. God will not admit as an apology, that their not serving
him was a mere negation, an omission only, and no positive
evil.

3. It was not by a mere oversight, or want of thought, that
God's authority was not acknowledged. The nation did acknowledge
him in the old articles of Confederation, which
were superseded by the present Constitution. (See last
article.) The subject was debated in the Convention, and it
was deliberately resolved that there should not be a recognition
of the Christian religion or of God. Were any State in
the United States to call a convention for the purpose of forming
a constitution, and should that body debate the question,
and resolve that they would not recognize the federal government,
would the resolution be regarded as a mere sinless
omission? The national government did not so treat the nullifiers
of South Carolina, in their threatening not to obey the
national law.

4. Sin consists in a want of conformity to the law of God.
The fourth and fifth commandments are the only precepts of
the decalogue in the positive form. He who neglects to sanctify
the Sabbath, and to honor his father and mother, breaks
these precepts directly; though he may plead that he is defective
{67}
only. If the plea availed, it would set aside all the claims
of these precepts. All the commandments are violated, and
very grossly too, by sins of omission, which are as worthy of
condemnation, as positive transgressions of the law.

5. If this plea avail for a nation, it will also for an individual.
He who never received by faith the Saviour offered
in the gospel, who never worships God, and who never makes
any profession of obedience to him, may plead with equal
plausibility, that all are imperfect, that these are mere defects,
that he is guilty of no positive immorality, and that in
approving of his whole character, there is no approbation of
what is wrong. Would any one for a moment give place to
such reasoning? What notions have they of the law of God,
who fabricate such apologies for those nations who set it at
nought and trample under foot its holy authority?

IV. It is contended that God is acknowledged, as "all executive
and judicial officers, both of the United States and of
the several States, shall be bound by an oath or affirmation,
to support this constitution." (Art. vi. Sec. 3.) The reply to
this is easy. 1. This clause proceeds on the principle, that
as many citizens think the sanction of an oath important, and
feel themselves bound by it, they therefore shall be bound by
what they hold to be an obligation. Papists are sometimes
sworn by the cross, when those who administer the oath do
not approve of the cross as a proper object by which to swear;
because an oath in that form lays hold on the superstitious
conscience of the Roman Catholic.

2. The clause does not define who or what shall be invoked
in the oath; whether Jupiter, Mahomet, Juggernaut, the
cross, or God the Creator. No one could possibly divine
from that clause, whether the article was framed by a christian,
a Jew, a Mahometan, a Pagan, or an atheist who believes
as many French infidels did, that the material universe
is the only God.

3. Bands of pirates and robbers bind those who enter into
their conspiracies against God and human society, by oaths
in the most solemn forms. But who ever reasoned from this
fact, that they intend to acknowledge God, and put their banditti
under his authority?
{68}

4. The obligation may be by an affirmation, in which there
is no appeal to any God. Were all the officers of the general
and state governments to affirm, and refer in the affirmation
to no God, they would fulfil all the requisitions of the constitution.
Now, when all that the constitution requires may be
fulfilled without any recognition of God, he cannot be said to
be acknowledge in that instrument.

5. It is immediately added—"But no religious test shall
ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust
under the United States." Were it intended that the requisition
of an affirmation, or an oath, should be a recognition of
the being of God, it would be, to all intents and purposes, a
religious test which would exclude atheists and pagans, who
do not acknowledge the God of the christian. So cautious
are they to guard against the misapprehension that they acknowledge
the being or authority of God.

V. We are told that there are many provisions in the constitution
agreeable to the law of God, and well calculated to secure
in many respects the rights of men and the good order
of society. All this is freely admitted. The principle, that
the consent of the majority is essential to all lawful authority
in the State, the doctrine of representative government, and
many of its details, are wise, wholesome, and praiseworthy.
But these principles and provisions are not introduced because
they are stamped with the divine authority, but because
they are the will of the people, and thought to be for
the promotion of the public weal. Had they believed
that there is no God, and no law enacted by him, these enactments
would have been all that they are. Had contrary
principles been supposed to be profitable, and according to
the will of the people, however adverse to the law of God,
they would have been embodied in the constitution. There
is not a shadow of evidence that they would not. There never
was a society of men, however nefarious, in which some
of the internal regulations were not good. No association of
men could exist for an hour without this. Let it be understood,
that no member of a society shall speak truth, and
that no faith can be had in the declaration or promise of any
one, and the society would dissolve in a moment. The adoption
of some of the laws of God does not imply subjection to
his government. When the United States became a nation
independent of Great Britain, the great body of English law
was transferred to the jurisprudence of this commonwealth,
{69}
without owning any allegiance to the British crown. How
can the mere fact that the same government has enacted
many laws found in the Bible, be pled as an argument that
it recognizes the authority of the divine Lawgiver, any more
than that of adopting the British laws, to prove subjection to
a foreign power? Infidels perform, as to the letter, numerous
duties enjoined in the Holy Scriptures, without being
thought, by so doing, to recognize the Word of God as their
rule of duty.

VI. It is argued that the government is Christian, because
Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States do
not sit on the Sabbath. But why do they not? It is not because
the constitution forbids them to transact business on
that day. Besides, they often continue their sessions far into
the Sabbath morning,*[1] which they would not do if they
thought it unconstitutional. The late war with Great Britain
was declared on the morning of the Sabbath; and Congress
lately imposed a fine on some of its members, for absence
from their seats on the Sabbath. And though they do not
usually sit on the Sabbath, it is because some members are
supposed to have conscientious scruples, as to the propriety
of transacting congressional business on that day. For the
same reason, the United States' courts adjourn over Sabbath,
that the consciences of parties doing business in them, may
have no violence done them. Even that, it is plain would be
disregarded, were there much pecuniary advantage to be
gained by Sabbath day sessions. The Sabbath mails, by
public authority, desecrate the Lord's day more grossly, more
extensively, and more offensively, than the courts would do,
were they to continue in session. Thus, the government
carries on a public and habitual warfare against one of the
most prominent and important provisions of the law of God.
Added to all this, the manner in which the members of the Congress,
the heads of executive departments, and the judges of
the court, spend the Sabbath, demonstrates that a great majority
of them do not decline to hold sessions or cabinets on
that day out of any respect for its holiness. Many of them
on the Sabbath, do deeds that would profane a week day.—Withal,
we have reason of thankfulness that christianity imposes
some degree of restraint on the ungodly, so that infidels
{70}
close their shops generally, and Congress their halls on the
Lord's day; though it is no proof that either the infidel or the
constitution recognizes its holiness.

VII. In justification of the disregard of the law of God, in
the constitution, it is said to be a treaty of confederation,
among independent state sovereignties, and not a national,
magistratical government. It is further pled, that what may
seem to be defective in its provisions, is supplied in the constitutions
of the several States; and that several of these recognize
the being of God, and some of them, the holy scriptures.
This apology is of late invention, is more subtile, and
more skilfully devised to mislead, than any of the other pleas
that we have refuted above. But when it is analyzed, it is
found equally defective.

1. While it is admitted that the national constitution is a
federal compact, it claims to be a magistratical power.
It provides for the organization
of the three departments of government—the legislative,
the judiciary, and the executive. The powers conferred on
congress are called legislative, or law making. "The legislative
powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress."
(Art. I. sec. 1.) They are such as belong to civil power only.
The exposition and application of the laws are styled judicial,
and the officers of this department are called judges.—"The
judicial power of the United States—the judges of the
supreme and inferior courts." And their powers are co-extensive
with the laws of the United States. "The judicial
power shall extend to all cases in law and equity, arising under
this constitution." (Art. III. sec. 1,2.) The judges are
empowered to try crimes, and the punishment of death is inflicted
by the decisions of the United States' courts. The
President is invested with executive power. "He shall take
care that the laws be faithfully executed." (Art. II. sec. 3.)
Legislation, judicial trials, and the execution of punishment,
even to death, are functions of the United States' government,
according to the constitution. The convention that framed
it was called to form a national government, that might supersede
the old Articles of Confederation. The President is
by the consent of all, styled the chief magistrate, and it is
called the government of the United States, by all except
those who defend it with a zeal extending even to its annihilation.
Either the United States is not a nation, or it is a
nation without a government, if the federal constitution does
{71}
not erect a national magistracy. But if it were a mere treaty,
why should there be no mention of God in a compact so solemn,
involving the interests of numerous, young and flourishing
commonwealths? [i.e., the several states united.] Treaties between christian nations, in
affairs of incomparably less interest, are usually ratified by
a recognition of God's authority. So, after all, as it claims
the powers of true and proper magistratical authority, this
apology will not avail to acquit it of the sin of dishonoring
God. It is evident that a plea of this kind never would have
been made, were it not so evidently preposterous to constitute
an ordinance of God for the government of men, without
any recognition of his authority.

2. It is admitted, that in a confederacy like that of the
United States, some of the details of legislation may be left
to the subordinate, local, or state authorities; while those
more comprehensive and general, may be committed to the
federal government. Indeed, from the nature of things, it
must be so, in all such cases. This occurs in the several
states, in which many minor details are committed to the incorporated
cities, villages and townships. But how does that
excuse the power which extends its jurisdiction over the
whole people, from the acknowledgment of God and his law?
Much local detail, in civil things, was vested in the heads of
the houses of the fathers, in the several tribes of Israel; but
the government extending over all the tribes did not, on that
account, hold itself freed from obligation to act in professed
obedience to the God of Israel.

3. It is true that God and his word are acknowledged in
some of the state constitutions; and the federal constitution
provides that "Full faith and credit shall be given, in each
state, to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of
every other state: and that the congress may, by penal laws,
prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings
shall be proved, and the effect thereof." (Art. IV.
Sec. 1.) But does this bind him who swears to support the
federal constitution, to believe in the being of God, and in the
truth of the holy scriptures, because they are recognized in
some states? Not at all. For that would be to introduce a
religious test. All that he must believe is, that these are acts
and proceedings of the states, embodied in their constitutions.
If necessary, congress is bound to aid in carrying them into
effect; not because they are true in themselves, but because
they have been decreed by the majority of the people in some
{72}
state, in the institution of their state government. This is evident;
for had the state constitution ordained the very reverse—that
no God should be acknowledged, and that the Bible is
a cunningly devised fable—he would be equally pledged by
the constitution to give full faith and credit to these impious
enactments. All this is based on the principle, that the will of
the people is absolutely supreme, and that, as they can do no
wrong, whatever they determine must be carried into effect.
We shall see presently, that on this principle, congress and the
federal government are pledged in fact to sustain acts and proceedings,
directly contrary to each other. If there is any
immorality in the constitution or constitutional laws of any
state, "full faith and credit" must be given, and congress
may aid in rendering them effectual.

Having demonstrated the futility of all the pleas set up in
justification of the constitution on the ground of its not recognizing
the being or authority of God, we proceed to specify
another immoral feature of the instrument.

IV. It positively prohibits the government from showing
any favor to the religion of the Lord Jesus Christ. "Congress
shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."
(Amendment I.) The promise of God to the church
is—"Kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy
nursing mothers." Isa. 49.23. "Because of thy temple at
Jerusalem, shall kings bring presents unto thee." Ps. 68.29.
"And the kings of the earth do bring their glory and
honor into it—and they shall bring the glory and the honor of
the nations into it." Rev. 21.24,26. The article referred
to above, forbids that any of all these things shall ever
be done in the United States. If civil rulers act the part of
nursing fathers to the church, if they bring presents to Christ
for the temple at Jerusalem, if they bring their glory and
honor into it, or if they bring the glory and honor of the nations
into it, the effect will be to give greater stability to religion.
God has promised it, and all that he promises is good.
They in substance affirm, that what God has promised to his
church, would not be for the interests of the United States,
and that it shall never take effect here. The least degree of
countenance given to the true religion by government, tends
to its promotion and firmer establishment. Were the constitution
to acknowledge the law of God contained in the holy
scriptures, as binding on the nation, it would be a law respecting
the establishment of religion. This article for ever forbids
{73}
any national recognition of the worship of God. The
government shall never make any law to honor God; for that
law would respect the establishment of religion. And this
absolute prohibition to promote the worship of the living God,
is enacted in a Protestant and christian nation! To show
the enormity of the wickedness of this unholy provision, we
refer to the article published by Synod, on the magistrates'
power circa sacra.

Under this head, we refer again to the article—"No religious
test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office
or public trust under the United States." The declaration of
God is, "He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the
fear of God." 2 Sam. 23.3. "It is an abomination to
kings to commit wickedness: for the throne is established by
righteousness." Prov. 16.12. The constitution says, there
is no need that a ruler should be just. No atheist, deist,
blasphemer, gross idolater, gambler, Sabbath-breaker, or
whore-monger, can ever be excluded by law from any office
or trust under the United States. To exclude him would be
to apply a religious test. To commit any or all of this wickedness
is abominable in a ruler, according to the law of God.
But by the constitution, these sins are no disqualification for
office. It is no abomination for officers to commit wickedness;
they may delight and revel in it, without any impeachment,
or disqualification for rule. And indeed the character
of very many of the officers, even the chief functionaries of
the federal government, furnishes an ample and deplorable
commentary on this provision, shows that it is not a dead
letter, and demonstrates that it is a delight and not an abomination
to them to commit wickedness. The qualifications
prescribed of God, for those who administer his ordinance of
civil government are, they shall be "able men, such as fear
God, men of truth, hating covetousness." Exod. 19.21.—The
constitution declares that the qualifications of fearing
God, and holding the truth, shall never be required. This
provision is directly and positively opposed to God's ordination.
God requires those who rule over men, in the administration
of his ordinance, to be his friends: the constitution
says his enemies shall not be excluded. This licentious provision
is in full keeping with the whole spirit and complexion
of the document. It is worthy of remark that the professors
who undertake the advocacy of the government as a holy and
heavenly institution, seem not to have invented any plea in
{74}
vindication of this clause. It would, indeed, be a most ungracious
business, for a minister of the gospel, or other professor,
to plead for the admission of the openly profane enemies
of God to office. It would be even more gross, if possible,
than to gravely argue, that the holy scriptures sanction
the holding of millions of unoffending men in bondage, though
it is confessed to be a most foul sin.

V. The United States' constitution sanctions negro slavery.
It is truly painful to see how eager thousands are to free the
government from this charge; while as many thousands lay
out all their strength to justify the iniquity by the word of
God. It is demonstrated that the national constitution is
chargeable with this sin, by the following arguments.

1. Slavery existed in many of the states when that instrument
was framed; and they were admitted into the union,
without any power vested in Congress to emancipate the
slaves, and with the understanding that it had no right to set
them free. The theory of the federal government is, that all
power not granted to it by the constitution, is residuary in
the state sovereignties. The power to abolish slavery is confessedly
not granted to congress; for had it been, the slave-holding
states would not have entered into the confederacy [viz., the confederacy of the United States.]
Government is instituted for the security of personal liberty
and rights, and to protect the weak against the violence of the
strong. In this one great and essential attribute of legitimate
government, the constitution fails. [And consequently, the government
thereby instituted is not a legitimate government.—JTK.] No provision is
made for securing to hundreds of thousands of the African
race their liberty, or any personal right. They are deliberately
and purposely left altogether at the mercy of their
masters, who hold them as property, and claim a right to
their persons, and all the proceeds of their labor.[C] If a man
harbors a thief, knowing him to be in possession of a stolen
property, the law holds him guilty of participation in the
theft; much more if he makes the thief a member of his
family, and derives profit from the use of the stolen property.
All this and more, as we shall soon see, was done in the adoption
of the federal constitution.

2. New states, not only holding slaves, but embodying
slavery in their constitutions, as Missouri, and Arkansas, have
been admitted into the Union, by congress, after protracted
and earnest argument. The constitution makes provision for
this. "New states may be admitted by congress." (Art. IV.
Sec. 3.) It is not indeed, specified on what terms the admission
{75}
shall take place. But it is fair to infer, that the
terms shall not be different from those on which others were
admitted. Others were at first introduced with all their slave
institutions and practices. If congress accepted of new states
as members of the Union, it certainly was not empowered to
prescribe new terms.

3. Provision was made for the protection of the slave trade
for more than twenty years, from the adoption of the constitution.
"The migration or importation of such persons as
any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit,
shall not be prohibited by congress, prior to the year 1808."
(Art. I. sec. 9.) The word slave was abhorrent to the ears of
men who had, but a few years before, been emancipated from
subjection to foreign dominion. No wonder the men who
framed the constitution, blushed to use it; but still they gave
their solemn and formal permission to continue the accursed
traffic in slaves. It was certainly implied that the persons so
imported, in slavery, should be guaranteed to the importers
as their property, after they compelled them to migrate in
bondage. All the slaves who had been imported under
this license, and their descendents now in the United States,
are held by a tenure derived from that grant.

4. Slavery is one of the pillars of the government. "Representation
and direct taxes shall be apportioned—by adding
to the whole number of free persons—three-fifths of all
other persons." (Art. I. sec. 3.) By this provision, a slaveholder
who possesses five slaves is entitled to what is equivalent
to four votes. So the constitution rewards him for his
sin of enslaving the innocent, with the right of three additional
votes. The slaveholding states are rewarded with the
privilege of sending about twenty-five more members to congress,
than they would be entitled to, did they not commit
the sin of enslaving more than two millions of unoffending
men.

5. They pay taxes for their slaves. (See the article quoted
above.) The constitution admits that the slaves are persons,
and yet taxes them as property. No man can be taxed for
property, in the possession of which he is not secured. Of
course, the constitution secures the right of property in slaves.

6. The states are bound to deliver up fugitive slaves.—"No
person held to labor or service in one state, under the
laws therof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of
any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service
{76}
or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party
to whom such labor or service may be due." (Art. IV. sec. ii.
spec. 3.) The government of the United States, by the constitution,
makes it imperative on the free states to deliver up
all the slaves that escape from their masters, as soon as they
are claimed. Every one who swears to the constitution,
pledges himself to aid, if necessary, in such delivery.[D]

7. Should the slaves rise to assert their right to liberty,
the constitution pledges the power of the Union to suppress
the attempt. "The United States shall—protect each of
them [the states]—against domestic violence." (Art. IV. sec.
iii.) This article has been acted upon by the federal government,
employing its troops to suppress slave insurrection.—It
is impossible to conceive a stronger sanction of slavery.

8. Congress has legislated on the subject of the delivery of
fugitive slaves, and all the free states have acted on it in the
execution of the laws. There are many other congressional
acts of legislation on the subject of slavery, whose constitutionality
has never been questioned.

9. Full faith and credit shall be given to all the constitutional
doings of the states. Many of these embody slavery
very specifically in their constitutions. By that of South
Carolina, no one can be a member of the house of Assembly,
unless he is possessed of ten slaves. In that of Arkansas,
the legislature is restrained from freeing any slave without
the consent of the holder. The constitution empowers congress
to aid in giving effect to these provisions. Other states,
as Pennsylvania and New-York, have emancipated their
slaves. The constitution sanctions these contradictory acts.
This illustrates the evil of taking the will of the people, irrespective
of the Divine will, as the basis of all human law.—Were
any state to enslave the one-half of its white inhabitants,
full faith and credit must be given to it, and congress is
empowered to aid in giving it effect. Were one state to establish
the Christian religion, as was done in Scotland in
1580, and another state to abolish all religion, decree that
every christian should be put to death, and that all the people
should profess atheism, full faith and credit must be given to
these deeds, and congress is empowered to aid in carrying
them into effect.

10. There is a very extensive slave traffic carried on among
the different states. The northern slaveholding states
supply those to the south and south-west with many thousands
{77}
of slaves every year. The horrors of this nefarious traffic
are nearly equal to that of the piratical African slave trade.
Congress alone has power to regulate this internal commerce
in human souls, sinews, flesh, and blood. "Congress
shall have power to regulate commerce among the several
states." (Art. I. sec. viii. spec. 3.) It may be asked, why, as
congress has abolished the African slave trade, and declared
it piracy, does it not put a stop to this inter-state traffic—the
more odious, and infamous, as it is driven on in the very centre
of a christian republic, and before the face of millions of
christian professors, and under the eyes of a free people?—The
answer is at hand. The federal constitution legitimates,
taxes, and guarantees that kind of property in which this
most execrable trade prosecutes its business.

11. There are from 6000 to 8000 slaves in the District of
Columbia, over which congress exercises "exclusive legislation."
(Art. III. sec. ii. spec. 17.) It is pled, indeed on good
ground, that congress has power to abolish slavery in the
District. But no one doubts, that the constitution vests them
also with the power to continue its existence there. Who
has ever doubted the constitutionality of the congressional
slave laws enacted for the District of Columbia? If there is
sin in perpetuating the slavery of the District, all those are
partakers in this sin, who give, by oath or suffrage, their adhesion
to the federal constitution by which it is authorized.
It is perfectly impossible to evade the force of this argument.

12. The slaves in the territory of Florida, are held under
laws emanating from congress, according to the constitution.
God has been avenging himself on the nation, for their cruelty
in the enslaving of the African race, by a most disastrous war [the Second Seminole War]
waged for the professed object of expelling from that territory
a few thousand miserable Indians, but in reality to cut off a
place of refuge from fugitive slaves. This ruinous war of
three and a half years' continuance, has cost the nation more
than twenty millions of dollars, and Florida has been made
the grave of about ten thousand Americans.

The corrupting influence of these pro-slavery provisions in
the constitutions of the land, is seen in the debased state of
morals at the seat of the general government, and in the slave
states generally—in the mobs, riots, arsons and murders that
have disturbed the repose of the nation, and alarmed of late
all wise men—in the public pleadings of ministers of the gospel,
on behalf of slavery, as if it were sanctioned by the word
{78}
of God—in the proceedings of ecclesiastical judicatories, and
of Congress, in attempting to suppress all discussion of the
rights of millions of men—in the supineness and total apathy
of the great body of professors, in relation to the national dishonor
done to God in the civil institutions of the country,
and in relation to the sufferings of bleeding humanity,—and
finally, in the alarming and rapidly increasing degeneracy of
morals among men of all ranks. These are the bitter fruits
of the seed sown by the nation in the formation of a constitution,
by which the rights both of God and man have been
trampled under foot.

It needs but little argument surely, with all intelligent christians,
who love our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and are
zealous for his honor and glory, to persuade them not to make
themselves partakers in these sins. Enough has surely been
urged, to convince all the friends of human liberty, that they
ought not to plight their faith to the upholding of a system
which arms with scourges the merciless oppressors of unoffending
millions, and rivets the chains of bondage on the
helpless victims of oppression. "Arise, O Lord, and plead
thine own cause, for the tumult of them that hate thee groweth
ever." [Psalm 74.22,23.] "Arise, O Lord, break the arm of the oppressor,
and plead the cause of the poor and needy." [Psalm 10.15; Prov. 31.9.] "Take the
nations for thine inheritance, and deliver them for whom
there is no helper." [Psalm 2.8; Exod. 34.9; Psalm 72.12.][E]

Footnotes:

A. And at our time, we may add to this list, "a mormon", seeing
as the heretic Mitt Romney has determined to run for office as "president" of the United States, notwithstanding the contrary obligations
of his oaths to the Mormon "church" and the oath of office.—JTK.

B. Namely, "Sunday", which profane term has now become
so common that many readers will take no notice or offence at its usage. In the days when the "US Constitution" was drafted however, many Christians could not but lament such an insult to the Lord,
as to choose to call the Christian Sabbath "Sun-day" instead of the Lord's Day, in an instrument intended to be published as a written constitution
of the nation and its government. Although counted of little significance to modern readers, this word alone was in itself a declaration that the "government"
so constituted was in fact an Infidel conspiracy against the King of Kings, and only rightful Sovereign over the people of North America.—JTK.

1. At the close of their late session, they spent FIFTEEN hours of the
Sabbath in legislation.—ED.

C. It should be noted, that although this entire section may seem somewhat dated,
and therefore as a weak appendix to arguments more relevant, yet,

1. The nullification of this institution within the U.S. Constitution by way of a mere appendix
of amendments cannot but be insulting to those of African dissent, and evidences intolerable pride on the part of the nation, in that,
although other corporations of great significance readily modify the actual text of their laws and constitutions when
found defective, yet the United States did not so. Her actions speak, and say plainly that her original constitution was
as lawful and legitimate before, as it is now that she pretends she has corrected it. And the inescapable inference is, that,
if the "will of the majority" shall again change, a new amendment may as easily make the same slavery & piracy as
legal and "constitutional" again, as it was prior to the North American Civil War.

2. Repentance consists of more than a mere ceasing from the commission of a crime because it
has brought unwanted consequences. National Repentance for National Sins requires National Confession of Sin, National
Hatred of that Sin, and National remuneration for the crimes committed against unoffending parties. The United States
pretends to have national days of Thanksgiving. On rare occasions her rulers have also proclaimed
national days of humiliation and fasting. Yet, these expressions of repentance were not imposed with
such authority as even heathen rulers have exemplified (Jonah 3,) neither is it to be admired that such
observations have been directed rather indefinitely to an unknown god supposed to be worshipped by
all the religions of the land "according to their several creeds and modes of worship," without a national
regard to the appointed Mediator, Jesus Christ, who alone is "the way, the truth, and the life," and through
whom alone men and nations may approach the true & living God, (John 14.6.) And, although there were at least
two such days proclaimed during the American Civil War, yet she never observed any national day of Fasting and Humiliation
for this dreadful sin. In sum, although she says that she has changed, and the present state of affairs is some
ways different than before, yet the change is morally irrelevant, and she remains chargeable with the faults of
her original constitution until she really repents. And,

3. Though the United States could be said to have properly repented of this National Evil,
yet there is at the present day, in the place of racial slavery, another crime, far more barbarous and cruel,
now instituted in the United States with the sanction of national civil "authority", or rather,
that power which she has received from her god, the Dragon, [Rev. 13.2.] What the United States
was chargeable with for depriving of liberty, and abusively using, hundreds of thousands of Africans, comes
far short of her crime in the savage murder of millions of infant children, cloaked under the medical
designation abortion. Was there then, "no provision made for securing to hundreds of thousands of the
African race their liberty, or any personal right," as mentioned in the above paragraph? Well, apparently
there is not now any provision made, in the US Constitution, for securing to millions of unoffending infant children their
very lives. Were these adult men and women then "deliberately and purposely left altogether at the mercy of their
masters, who hold them as property, and claim a right to their persons, and all the proceeds of their labor," as above?
It seems evident now that the US Constitution, while securing the protection of the strong, yet leaves
the nation's children to the godless mercy of North American neo-savages and their educated "doctors",
as mere inconveniences-to-future-plans, unwanted-expenses, and possible-health-risks.—JTK.

D. The reader should note,
that this is in direct contradiction to Deut. 23.15,16: Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which
is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you,
in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best:
thou shalt not oppress him. What Christian could ever support, or swear allegiance to a constitution,
so flatly contradicting the laws of God? And how can that constitution be regarded as religiously "neutral",
while at one moment it pretends to be so by providing that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
and at another moment it, in fact, establishes a national religion, consisting of morals plainly anti-Christian,
unquestionably inferring a basis of morality different from, and arrogantly superior to, the Word of God.—JTK.

E. Again,
as above these verses were very fitly applicable to the issue of slavery, so too now they are even more applicable
to the issue of abortion, and represent the prayers of God's people for the abolishing of this institution, and
destruction of its upholders.—JTK.